Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

We need a new political term- neolibertarian

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   
I see a serious need to differentiate between real libertarians, and the far right imposters who now call themselves libertarians to avoid being tarnished by George W Bush, or because they think it sounds trendy. I take serious offense to people who are either neoconservatives, social conservatives or big business republicans trying label themselves as lovers of freedom, or to escape the negative connotations of their own ideology.

I wish from now on anyone who calls themselves libertarian who isn't a pot smoking hippie must be correctly labeled by the rest of us as the deceitful right wingers that they are.
Who's with me?
edit on 6-2-2012 by CB328 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
conservative means different things to different people



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
fuggedaboutit.
libertarians are libertarians.
If someone calls themsleves a libertarian who isn't one, should simply be proven not to be one by opening their mouth.
nuff said



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   
True, but there are a lot of people lately calling themselves libertarians who are obviously republicans- Glenn Beck is a good example.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Beck'inites?
Glennitarians?
Limbaughtarian (actually, his drones have always been called dittoheads)

Libertarianity..

I could go on...and on...and on.
and I will


Hannitarian
erm...
Libercorporatarian
ok, I will stop.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Isn't it true that libertarians are primarily concerned with personal freedom, while Republicans are mostly concerned with economic/corporate freedom (and war and religion)?
edit on 6-2-2012 by CB328 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by CB328
Isn't it true that libertarians are primarily concerned with personal freedom, while Republicans are mostly concerned with economic/corporate freedom?


More like corporate super-empowerment and moral fascism.

But thats just my perspective on it.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Why do we need more labels and party's....they are already tearing this nation apart.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Ron Paul is pretty much a neolibertarian.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Libertarian used to mean a close ally of Anarchist. People co-opted it in common usage and now you're angry that the Libertarians of today aren't the Libertarians you want them to be.




The use of the word "libertarian" to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.[19] Hence libertarian has been used by some as a synonym for left-wing anarchism since the 1890s.[20] Libertarian socialists, such as Noam Chomsky and Colin Ward, assert that many still consider the term libertarianism a synonym of anarchism in countries other than the US.[9]


en.wikipedia.org...

I don't want to be the guy who walks into every political thread to talk about Anarchy but really, this is ATS, deny ignorance. Instead of becoming a 'neolibertarian' why not just suck it up and describe who you are with something that's more useful as a description?

Making it a single word is just obscuring what you mean with a desire to keep it simple. No one knows what a neolibertarian is and Libertarian just used to mean a non-Proudhon anarchist.


Leave Libertarian the word out of your new ideology, it's already being taken over by right wing conservative panderers who couldn't tell you why Equality and Fraternity are the pillars of Liberty.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   
There's already a very simple way to separate wheat from chaff.

It's all in the "but."

Fakers always have a "but." Personal liberty is fine for them until you hit their "but."

Then the tyrant within comes oozing out in pointless hysterical waves.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Another label is the last thing humanity needs.

As for libertarians, it's usually the people who flaunt it that are furthest from it. I guess that probably goes for most "isms".



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sachyriel
Libertarian used to mean a close ally of Anarchist. People co-opted it in common usage and now you're angry that the Libertarians of today aren't the Libertarians you want them to be.




The use of the word "libertarian" to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.[19] Hence libertarian has been used by some as a synonym for left-wing anarchism since the 1890s.[20] Libertarian socialists, such as Noam Chomsky and Colin Ward, assert that many still consider the term libertarianism a synonym of anarchism in countries other than the US.[9]


en.wikipedia.org...

I don't want to be the guy who walks into every political thread to talk about Anarchy but really, this is ATS, deny ignorance. Instead of becoming a 'neolibertarian' why not just suck it up and describe who you are with something that's more useful as a description?

Making it a single word is just obscuring what you mean with a desire to keep it simple. No one knows what a neolibertarian is and Libertarian just used to mean a non-Proudhon anarchist.


Leave Libertarian the word out of your new ideology, it's already being taken over by right wing conservative panderers who couldn't tell you why Equality and Fraternity are the pillars of Liberty.





from one of the heroes of the "Libertarian" right himself.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   
There are a couple of acid tests you can apply, as far as someone calling themselves libertarian is concerned.

a} Are they advocating that their own morality should be superimposed on everyone else?
b} Are they advocating or attempting to justify war against the contrived enemy of the week?

If the answer to either or both of these questions is yes, then you are dealing with a fascist, not a libertarian.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by eboyd

Originally posted by Sachyriel
Leave Libertarian the word out of your new ideology, it's already being taken over by right wing conservative panderers who couldn't tell you why Equality and Fraternity are the pillars of Liberty.


Fraternity actually isn't one of the pillars of liberty at all; quite the opposite. You'll always experience more freedom when you're not around other people, than you will when you are.

Sachyriel has one thing in common with a lot of other left anarchists; and that is the tragic misconception that there is literally a single idea inside his head which the Illuminati did not put there. If you so much as mention the phrase, "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," then you are admitting that you are a victim of masonic mind control; because that is where that phrase came from. They are the originators of that concept, and they use it (and the inherent contradictions contained within it) in order to control people.
edit on 9-2-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by eboyd

Originally posted by Sachyriel
Leave Libertarian the word out of your new ideology, it's already being taken over by right wing conservative panderers who couldn't tell you why Equality and Fraternity are the pillars of Liberty.


Fraternity actually isn't one of the pillars of liberty at all; quite the opposite. You'll always experience more freedom when you're not around other people, than you will when you are.

Sachyriel has one thing in common with a lot of other left anarchists; and that is the tragic misconception that there is literally a single idea inside his head which the Illuminati did not put there. If you so much as mention the phrase, "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," then you are admitting that you are a victim of masonic mind control; because that is where that phrase came from. They are the originators of that concept, and they use it (and the inherent contradictions contained within it) in order to control people.
edit on 9-2-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)


There are times in which I want to downvote posts on this site like I do on reddit.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sachyriel
There are times in which I want to downvote posts on this site like I do on reddit.


Being able to downvote posts that you disagree with is convenient. It relieves you of the burden of having to actually mount a rational defense of your own opinion.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by Sachyriel
There are times in which I want to downvote posts on this site like I do on reddit.


Being able to downvote posts that you disagree with is convenient. It relieves you of the burden of having to actually mount a rational defense of your own opinion.


You just called me a victim of mind control, that's more damning to you than me. What kind of argument do I take to that?
You merely call me mind controlled because you find it convenient. You lack the burden of having to mount a rational defence against me because you merely dismiss me out of hand for being mind controlled.

I would say the same about you, that you are mind controlled.

I actually have a sort of proof that I can do it too.



But, if you please, explain to me how I'm not controlling your mind right now.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sachyriel
But, if you please, explain to me how I'm not controlling your mind right now.


The phrase "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," is inherently paradoxical, and is intended to be. A person cannot have complete freedom, within the context of association with others. That can only occur when a person is alone. Otherwise, the other people present will always be exercising some degree of influence over said individual, even if they aren't ordering the person around directly.

Equality as it is meant in the context of the above statement, does not exist either; nor, for that matter, does liberty, if the intent is to exercise such to the point of entropy. In nature, different organisms have different roles; which implies non-uniformity by definition. Natural constraints also apply as well; basic things such as hunger, thirst, fatigue etc, and we can never get free from those.

The statement is designed to make us think that we can have certain things which we can't. Liberty to the point of entropy, (that is, to the point of being literally free of biological limits) and equality to the point of total uniformity and being generic in nature.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by Sachyriel
But, if you please, explain to me how I'm not controlling your mind right now.


The phrase "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," is inherently paradoxical, and is intended to be. A person cannot have complete freedom, within the context of association with others. That can only occur when a person is alone. Otherwise, the other people present will always be exercising some degree of influence over said individual, even if they aren't ordering the person around directly.

Equality as it is meant in the context of the above statement, does not exist either; nor, for that matter, does liberty, if the intent is to exercise such to the point of entropy. In nature, different organisms have different roles; which implies non-uniformity by definition. Natural constraints also apply as well; basic things such as hunger, thirst, fatigue etc, and we can never get free from those.

The statement is designed to make us think that we can have certain things which we can't. Liberty to the point of entropy, (that is, to the point of being literally free of biological limits) and equality to the point of total uniformity and being generic in nature.


If your argument merely rests on each term being absolute you're wrong, a balance must be struck between what we want from all three of them with each other.

We are not about absolute freedom anymore than we are about absolute equality. Our fraternity will be about finding a better balance between the two than any government.

"natural constraints" nothing, humans are better than merely giving in to nature. We can free ourselves from those.

If you think otherwise I emrely leave you in your own cage, good bye.

>That can only occur when a person is alone.

I'll leave you to be free of me, for I am free to talk about it with anyone else I'd like. Maybe they will agree with me, and we'll actually get somewhere.





new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join